The Llano Desktop Preview: AMD A8-3850 CPU & GPU Performance
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 14, 2011 12:00 AM ESTCPU Performance: Pretty Much an Athlon II X4
As we found in our look at mobile Llano, the A8 isn't impressive as a general purpose x86 microprocessor. In general the chip is somewhat faster than the Athlon II X4 635 and I'd say it performs more like a 645 based on the numbers I've seen here. Again, nothing to be impressed by but if you're building a value gaming PC it may not matter.
Note that heavily-threaded applications actually favor the A8-3850 to the Core i3 2100 (its most likely target based on pricing rumors) thanks to its four cores. They may not be as efficient as the i3's cores, but you sure do have more of them. We have been discussing this tradeoff with AMD for quite a bit over the past couple of years. You lose out on single-threaded performance but you do gain better performance in heavily-threaded workloads. I had assumed that Turbo Core would partially solve this with Llano but 2.9GHz is going to be the fastest SKU AMD offers and it doesn't ship with any turbo enabled.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
131 Comments
View All Comments
SlyNine - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
And why exactly is that, or do you actually believe that X86 is slows your computer down and uses more power?davegraham - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
milli,AMD was the first in the consumer market to do an IMC. Intel was second.
AMD developed the x86_64 ISA; Intel licensed it from AMD (EMT64; not IA64 which is EPIC/Itanium)
as far as Fusion goes, could be several different aspects to things there...(core fusion, gpu/cpu fusion, etc.). Arguably, AMD announced their GPU/CPU fusion capabilities before Intel did.
cheers,
Dave
Akv - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
Interesting conclusion.However, if you are like me a member of the 0.001% of geek website visitors who use computer for cognitive activities, you will find that gaming performance is not that important.
Sandy Bridge offers more CPU power and totally sufficient IGP for sciences, technology, arts and video. How come you can write that that is not acceptable graphics ?
If you are a roaring swearing illiterate teenager however you will need something stronger - and uglier - in front of your eyes. Like a war game or something.
The more I visit reviews website, the more I wish teenagers would be kept away in their bedrooms, with their gamez and their loudspeakers.
ET - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
I'd love to know what you mean by "cognitive activities" exactly. Gaming certainly includes many such activities, such as perceiving the environment, remembering it, responding to on-screen action, and so on.Even an Atom offers CPU and GPU power that's totally sufficient for "sciences", "technology" and "arts". If by that you mean browsing websites and reading about them. I mean, if you remain on the vague side of definitions there's no particular need to go for a powerful CPU.
And even if you keep teenagers locked up, the majority of gamers happen to be in their twenties and thirties, so that probably won't have as huge an effect as you think.
So your conclusions seem a lot more "interesting" than those of the article.
BernardP - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
CPU performance is as expected, considering it's based on a tweaked Athlon II core. But the positive effects of the tweaks don't show in benchmarks.GPU performance is disappointing: With 400 shaders, expectations were higher than the results shown here. Not even to the level of NVidia's GT 220.
Overall, an adequate and hopefuly cheap APU for basic PC and HTPC.
I'm still waiting to see what Bulldozer can do: No integrated graphics for me.
mczak - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
Keep in mind the ddr3-1333 memory - I bet it scales almost linearly with memory frequency (especially the fastest part here). Intel HD3000 may also only use ddr3-1333 but this is by vendor choice (H67) plus it likely relies a bit less on memory bandwidth (first because it's slower, second because it can use L3 cache). I bet it would easily beat GT220 with faster memory.If you're running ddr3-1333 with desktop Llano, you're either using some old memory you already have, got a prebuilt box where the vendor saved 2$ for 20% performance hit, or are just plain crazy.
whoaaaaaaaa - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
As a PC gamer I love that CPUs are finally getting somewhat respectable integrated graphics.I hope Ivy Bridge continues on what Sandy Bridge did...if it can play TF2, COD, WOW in decent graphics at a decent resolution, PC gaming just got a lot more accessible.
I suspect there has been a quite a few people with crap PCs who have tried to play games but found out they couldn't because of the integrated graphics.
Perhaps this is what Intel and AMD are thinking? They want more gamers on the PC because they buy hardware. Ensuring that everyone on a PC can play games can ultimately get more people to buy higher end graphics cards and processors so they can play in good details.
jabber - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
As I mentioned earlier today, the only games I tend to find on "normal folks" PCs and laptops are the Sims games.Thats pretty much it. In three years of business I've seen a lot of PCs and laptops and so far only about 3-4 of them have been what I would call 'gamers'.
If it can run The Sims/WoW and Farmville and make them look pretty then its mission accomplished.
The other 10% will be using a separate GPU anyway.
Might help the Bitcoin miners though? Every little helps.
SlyNine - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
I say, Most people try a game, find it cannot run and uninstall it.Why would I have a game wasting space ( and in many peoples minds performence even when its not running).
The other 10% use a separate GPU because the IGP cannot handle gaming.
ET - Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - link
True WoW and other MMO's are the most demanding games a casual gamer will run, but it's only with Sandy Bridge and now Llano that integrated graphics were able to satisfy that demand, and even then a little more power won't hurt.